[#3419] Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>

Hello list,

19 messages 2004/09/17
[#3422] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — ts <decoux@...> 2004/09/17

>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

[#3423] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...> 2004/09/17

On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:01, ts wrote:

[#3424] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — ts <decoux@...> 2004/09/17

>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

[#3425] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...> 2004/09/17

On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:37, ts wrote:

[#3426] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — ts <decoux@...> 2004/09/17

>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

[#3428] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...> 2004/09/17

On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:05, ts wrote:

[#3429] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — ts <decoux@...> 2004/09/17

>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

Re: "destructiveness" of delete

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2004-09-02 01:03:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #3339
Hi,

In message "Re: "destructiveness" of delete"
    on 04/09/01, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:

|I don't either, but I think the question of how "delete" relates to
|"delete!" is separate.  I would favor unification, not because strings
|should be similar to arrays but to avoid having two conflicting
|rationales (even if one of them has been forgotten :-) for how
|"delete[!]" relates to its receiver.

There were no big reason than "they had different origins" as I stated
before.  Probably it was wrong naming, I admit.  I'm afraid that
unifiying behavior (to either direction) would cause serious problems
more than it would solve.  Any realistic idea, anyone?

							matz.

In This Thread